He just tweeted this update: "I wrote this story a week ago. It traveled around the Internet. Not only are they down to 45 names, people in the Netherlands who lost track of each other, rediscovered each other. The internet is cool."

Then maybe try this angle: it's a local business with very ltd regional distribution, well paid workers and an otherwise good reputation.

I'd like to know more about this legal action because it is totally out of character with the brewery's reputation. Search through their many offerings, past and present. Show me the sexist names, the racist names. (There aren't any.)

I have yet to read anything that explains WHY Bell's did this. If I were to guess based on their long history of giving customers what they want (excellent beer), I would have to say that this seems very odd. Almost as if an idiot lawyer talked them into a foolish course of action.

I'm slow to defend companies, but how often do companies look stupid because they hired an idiot law firm?

I don't even drink beer anymore (a 22 oz bottle of 11% beer is like drinking a loaf of bread, weightwise), but I am going to need to see a quote from Larry Bell signing off on this idiocy before I condemn Bell's.

Politically, Clinton's Nixonian DNC was more than willing to fake a false flag attack. They booted the election in unpardonable ways (ask any seasoned liberal activist if Clinton's campaign behaved rationally by ANY normal standards).

This is their excuse, and for 10 months they've stonewalled any attempt at autopsy in their dead on arrival campaign.

Studies show they create a craving for real sweets. I saw this with an elderly gentleman I knew. He used artificial sweeteners and invariably after using them, he'd go hunting for real sugar. If he skipped the artificial sweeteners, the craving for real sugar just wasn't there.

I could care less about cancer. There are better reasons not to use fake sugar. Like fake pot, it's not even close to being good for you.

In case any readers are unclear as to the concept, due to unique geography I get my internet from Verizon wireless. That costs $10/1 GB. Do your own math (hint: it's cheaper to buy DVDs of new movies than to stream them).

Chaffetz is from Utah and a ridiculously high percentage of SS and FBI agents are Mormons. Something happened ten years ago and I suspect we still don't know what that was about other than it was about a lot more than what we're reading.

What THIS is about is Chaffetz leaking this story all over the Beltway to bolster his credentials for a leadership role in the new, even more radicalized Republican Congress.

Chaffetz is playing the media like a violin. Techdirt should cover him very cautiously.

Does the author have any clue why scientists are trying to modify rice? Why the tip on how to reduce the calories in rice? Yes, as a fat American I know that trick, but the scientists are trying to trick MORE calories out of rice, not less.

What a stunning disconnect to go from feeding people to tips on how to get less food value from your food.

but in no way was Nancy Pelosi trying to stop fast track. Naked Capitalism has written about this at length. Pelosi pushed so hard for this her own allies in the Democratic Caucus called her out last night.

Anything you read crediting Pelosi with stopping this is based on her flacks' false account. Pelosi and Obama lost today, and the Democratic party regained a smidgeon of their lost honor.

There is a weirdly effective guerrilla marketing scam the right uses. They see where the counterculture is making inroads, note how that information is being distributed, and then they start coming up with "stings" like this one that make you doubt the good information.

This chocolate study may have been about how easily duped we are, but it's getting wide distribution because it makes people doubt the alternative health information out there. I saw this article in real time and dismissed it because it was so obviously indebted to wishful thinking.

Voluminous amounts of new information about diet are coming out. Much better documented and not fad dieting oriented. Simply put, we've been propagandized into ruining our diets. Why? Because you can make more money from processed foods. But hey, there was a phony story about chocolate, so you'd be stupid to read any of that stuff, which is why you're going to continue to read about this study for a long, long time.

I hate 1st Amendment debates because everything is so black and white, but I live in a very gray world.

I don't have much faith in our Constitution anymore. Words can be used as weapons, and there is a gray area where our Constitution permits those with loud voices to brutalize those without power. Our courts refuse to see the connection between the words and the violence, but clearly some of those words lead to some of that violence.

You can use words to promote revolution without anyone being harmed, but a skilled hatemonger can use words to promote philosophies that result in attacks on whichever "other" is being scapegoated.

But maybe this is really just a debate about how selectively we interpret our laws. A SCOTUS worthy of the name would see that Geller's speech shouldn't be protected. Such a ruling would be of great comfort to me because I live in a violent country where haters constantly urge us on to new wars and more punitive law enforcement.

I do appreciate this site's optimism and belief in our Constitution, but increasingly I think that's a Norman Rockwell picture of an America that doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did.

The passages you selected show that Cullin honored Doyle by taking a passage and improving on it in ways Doyle could not have. Doyle's Holmes sounds like a manipulative cult leader, whereas Cullin's take pays tribute to the detective as psychologist.

I do not care for a 1st Amendment that only kicks in when death is mentioned.

So you support a broad reading of the first amendment that protects you in a wide variety of circumstances? I am failing to see how that helps your arguement.

--Not worded well. I meant that the 1st Amendment only kicks into "hey, that's not what the Founders meant" mode when death is mentioned.

The exceptions for commercial speech are clear. And when you're on the receiving end of it (and as a white male Boomer I rarely am), hate speech is a lot more obvious than this site seems to think. I'm not talking nuances, I'm talking Ms. Wu's death threats sitting on an FBI desk gathering dust. Hate speech/gamergate/Pam Geller — there are a lot of people working to necessitate a clarification of the 1st Amendment.